Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arp-Madore 1


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Arp-Madore 1

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, unreferenced, and non-notable. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep; I can't seem to be able to locate this object on SIMBAD (although it doesn't seem to be a hoax based on Google Scholar results). Anyone know what it's listed under? Based on the GS results so far though, I'm leaning towards delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to go by AM1 in SIMBAD, though other papers call it "AM-1". I believe this is the discovery paper: . Certainly raised all the red flags for me on first look, but now I'd say it should be kept, since SIMBAD's bibliography provides numerous singular studies of the object. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking at the papers on the relevant entry, I agree that it should be kept. This isn't to say the article is in good state; it isn't, and needs major work. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. I added a few of the more relevant SIMBAD hits as references to the article, and expanded its text from them. As the subject of multiple independent published works that have this object in their titles, it clearly passes WP:NASTRO #3 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:NASTRO. The article has been improved since the nomination with references to multiple reliable sources in which this object was treated in depth. Nice work, David and Astrocog. --Mark viking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.